Leaders Aren't Being Made At Tech Firms

theodp writes "In this article Vivek Wadhwa laments that short shrift is paid to management training these days at many high-tech firms. You can't be born with the skills needed to plan projects, adhere to EEOC guidelines, prepare budgets and manage finances, or to know the intricacies of business and IP law, says Wadhwa. All this has to be learned. Stepping up to address the problems of 'engineering without leadership,' which may include morale problems, missed deadlines, customer-support disasters, and high turnover, are programs like UC Berkeley's Engineering Leadership Program and Duke's Masters of Engineering Management Program, which aim to teach product management, entrepreneurial thinking, leadership, finance, team building, business management, and motivation to techies."

Comments

MBA's

[ProfBooty]

Wasn't this what MBA's were originally intended for? Training engineers to be managers?

Re:MBA's

[jcr]

Careful with the broad brush, there. I've met MBAs who were well-trained to run a business, and I've met others who just got their ticket punched from a "name brand" school who were somewhat worse than useless.

-jcr

Re:MBA's

[hedwards]

Or perhaps we ought to go back to the system where you didn't need extra letters behind your name to get a promotion. Just evidence that you could do your job and the next one up. That's ultimately where we went wrong. No MBA or degree program in and of itself is a replacement for industry experience and knowledge. The fact that people see an MBA and assume that a person has any knowledge or capability at all on that basis is extremely terrifying to me. The evidence I've seen over the last decade or so is that it would be wise to put those applicants to the bottom of the pile if we're doing anything without a full thorough investigation.

The fact that businesses so routinely run themselves out of business and do great harm to themselves with ill conceived business strategies ought to be evidence that perhaps something is going horribly, horribly wrong as the status quo at business school.

How did we survive back then

[Bucc5062]

My God, how did we ever survive, much less built some amazing technology before this great mind discovered we are not "making leaders" today. We are not making leaders, or are the leaders focused in the wrong direction. IBM, HP, Wang, Dec, Microsoft, Apple, yes even Google started small and grew because their "leaders" did not focus on the next month, the next quarter, but on a long term vision of what they wanted their company to be in the market. In my thirty years in this IT industry I know of only two managers that understand that if you manage the people, they will manage the project. The rest managed the budget, the project and never took time to understand the resources they had. Whet these new classes should re-teach is the art of managing people so they become a positive, motived work force and not indentured labor.

Re:How did we survive back then

[munitor]

What you describe is the difference between leadership and management. You can teach people to manage projects, meet regulations, take care of HR housekeeping, etc., but it's hard to teach leadership (building a shared vision, developing people, personal effectiveness, etc.) unless the student already has the capacity and the drive.

Leadership?

[0xdeadbeef]

adhere to EEOC guidelines, prepare budgets and manage finances, or to know the intricacies of business and IP law

That's not leadership. That's memorizing a bunch of artificially imposed minituae that is not very interesting. That is a role suited for an assistant trained in law.

The budget part is relevant, but only to the extent that every human being ought to know how to manage their resources. The rest is suited for an assistant trained in accounting.

honesty and wisdom

[bzipitidoo]

Once again, I'm seeing a focus on technical competence, and the usual ragging on managers who don't know anything that way. And also on competence in the technical aspects of business such as budgeting and knowing the ropes of IP law.

Managers and financial wizards are worse than useless if they are damned fools and aren't honest. They think they're telling little white lies that don't cause any harm when they mislead investors and employees. And they have funny ideas about how to motivate people. They want everyone on hot seats, all the time, thinking that's how to get the most out of people. They prowl around with the micromanagement, thinking that's how they're going to ferret out the slackers, and making it so the rest won't dare slack. They treat underlings like mushrooms, in an insulting, patronizing manner, not seeing how that can be self-fulfilling, and how it can blow back at them. As if that's not bad enough, they gratuitously indulge their fears, jealousies, petty spitefulnesses, bullying ways, and dominance gaming on the employees they've done all they can to make captive.

Where is the "leadership" training that covers such issues? Are people just supposed to instinctively know not to treat with their fellows so? I've seen enough of that kind of foolishness in RL to know it cannot be just swept under the rug.

Re:honesty and wisdom

[hedwards]

In my experience, leadership isn't something which can be taught, anymore than integrity and strength can. Sure you can help somebody develop those skills, but at the end of the day, it comes from someplace within.

People tend to follow me for the simple reason that I'm not scared of really anything, but haven't lost my respect for the dangers out there. I'm willing to take responsibility for the people that are following my orders and willing to tell people to screw off when I have the need to do so.

The absolute worst thing that a leader can do is flip flop and fold on a subordinate following orders.

The technical skills can all be taught, pretty much anybody willing to put in the time and effort can learn them, same goes for the laws applicable to the situation.

Re:It's a lack of understanding what is leadership

[Newer Guy]

Agreed! I had a boss who was General Manager of a Boston radio station. He didn't know much about engineering or sales-but he was a great judge of people-and creative people WANTED to work for him! He hired the best people, gave them the tools they needed to do their jobs and then LET THEM! He didn't micromange. He knew that creative people occasionally pushed the barriers and let them-but was always there to pull back gently on their leashes if necessary. I enjoyed working for him-and let me assure you it was hard work. BUT you felt like you were part of a team-and he also shared the credit/spoils with all of the people who worked for him. One summer week the Tall Ships were coming to Boston, and it was my job to not only facilitate a weeks broadcasts from a pier on the waterfront, but also make sure the talent got there for their broadcasts-when half the streets were closed down. So I hired a reliable friend as station driver for the week-dressed in his best suit and with a daily freshly washed and cleaned station Jeep just to drive talent, clients and management back and forth. He had full press credentials so he could drive everywhere and since he kneew the area (and knew how to make friends with the Boston Police officers) got priority treatment from them. At the end of the week my boss told me: "when you came up with this idea I didn't like it, but decided to give you a shot-and it turned out it was one of the best ideas you have ever had". THAT'S the kind of boss he was-he made you feel great!